SpaceX Dragon capsule berths with space station

Dragon spacecraft will remain docked for a few weeks before bringing back cargo.

In another picture-perfect arrival, the first official SpaceX cargo Dragon pulled up with an initial shipment of supplies to the International Space Station early Wednesday morning at 6:56am ET. It was the fourth successful launch of the Falcon 9 rocket, the third flight for a Dragon spacecraft, and its second successful berthing. Astronauts aboard the ISS quickly captured the craft this morning, well ahead of the timeline. They will spend the next few days unloading equipment and groceries.

This mission is entitled "CRS-1," denoting the first commercial resupply mission to the Station. If the rest of the mission—the separation and landing—takes place without any hitches, Dragon will have completed a successful transition from NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to the new and ongoing Commercial Resupply Services program. SpaceX has a contract with NASA under CRS to deliver a total of 12 cargo missions.

A cargo Dragon spacecraft berthed for the first time with the Station at the end of May. That very successful COTS 2/3 mission combined two flights, one to demonstrate the capabilities of the Dragon and another to actually berth with the Station. It was during that mission that the world was really introduced to SpaceX, the Dragon, and its new role as a commercial cargo carrier for NASA. Anyone who hadn't previously heard of the Dragon knew about it afterward, given the substantial news coverage that accomplishment received. COTS 2/3 was successful, from launch to splashdown and delivery of both a physical payload from the Station and an unintentional message to a skeptical Congress of changing times.

CRS-1 is, hopefully, a transition from the new to the routine. The spacecraft's payload includes only 545kg of a possible 6000kg. The reason NASA is using less than a tenth of the Dragon's potential is that some of the items aboard are particularly bulky. Alongside 118kg of food, clothing, and batteries, the spacecraft is carrying 177kg of station equipment. That portion includes a GLACIER (General Laboratory Active Cryogenic Experiment Refrigerator) freezer, good to -160°C. It also includes a FIR (Fluids Integrated Rack) full of physics experiments, an experiment examining the behavior of the yeast Candida albicans in microgravity, another physics experiment rack filled with fluid-flow microgravity experiments, and a bag filled with materials that will be deliberately exposed to space outside the Station. All of these items fit in the pressurized section of the spacecraft, leaving the unpressurized section empty. As Chris Bergin detailed over at nasaspaceflight.com, SpaceX used the empty space to carry a small communications satellite for Orbcomm since NASA wasn't using it.

Orbcomm's prototype OG2 communications satellite suffered an unfortunate fate due to an engine malfunction about 1:19 after the launch. A medium-sized cloud of expanding gas burst from the rocket in a manner suggestive of a major problem in one of the outer engines. In a statement released on October 8 SpaceX said that the engine didn't explode, but didn't mention cracked combustion chambers, disintegrated turbopumps, or various other causes of unexpected disassembly. As it was designed to do, the rocket recalculated its trajectory and proceeded to orbit on its remaining eight engines.

Unfortunately, the engine malfunction placed the Falcon 9 upper stage in a slightly different approach to the International Space Station. That new approach caused the stage to violate a set of conditions known as a "safety gate"; there was no way the satellite could ascend to its intended 350km x 750km orbit without crossing the ISS orbit, and no time to check to make sure that no collision would occur. The second stage's flight control software automatically cancelled its second burn, leaving the satellite in a much lower (203km x 323km) orbit than intended. Engineers from Orbcomm and Sierra Nevada Corporation, the manufacturer, are deciding what can be done, and both SpaceX and Orbcomm are being noticeably cagey about their press releases.

The good news for everyone but Orbcomm and its stockholders is that the Dragon spacecraft never noticed. It reached its destination and will remain berthed to the Station for the next few weeks, a much longer berth than the last one, before departing for a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. The CRS-1 cargo craft will carry back down to Earth experiments that have been accumulating up at the Station since the end of the Space Shuttle program.

Although NASA has had other spacecraft from other parts of the world to take cargo up to the Station, until Dragon was ready, only the Shuttle has ever been capable of bringing cargo back down. According to Julie Robinson, a NASA ISS Program Scientist speaking about the mission Monday on NASA TV, when CRS-1 departs it will take with it a GLACIER freezer filled with blood and urine samples and other results of experiments enacted aboard ISS during the past year. With a new bureaucratic structure in place for the Station, now properly designated the International Space Station National Laboratory, the ISS has better capabilities for conducting joint experiments with commercial entities or other national institutions and organizing the resulting intellectual property.

CRS-1 represents a big transition for a young company, but it's an even bigger transition for NASA and for the fledgling commercial space industry. SpaceX's contract for delivery services resembles any other delivery contract in many ways. Much like a FedEx envelope, Dragon can carry almost anything NASA wants to ship in its pressurized and unpressurized sections, up to a combined 13,200 pounds. When Orbital Sciences completes its own COTS development agreement in the next several months, Orbital's contract will work the same way. SpaceX and Orbital will become the FedEx and UPS of the space cargo business.

Shipping cargo from the Earth's surface to a destination in space is a far different business than launching satellites. These first dozen cargos are slated for the only currently existing manned destination in space, the International Space Station, but other destinations are being planned by both public and private entities. The Orlando Sentinel announced an as-yet unconfirmed (but long-rumored) NASA plan for an outpost at Earth-Moon Lagrange point 2 (EML2), out beyond the dark side of the Moon. Bigelow Aerospace plans to build space stations for both government and private players. Another example, Excalibur Almaz would also like to put manned stations in orbit. As humans create more destinations, SpaceX, Orbital Sciences, and other companies will presumably bid to ship cargo (and later, humans) to them. And thus, with the first CRS mission, a new kind of business has been created.

That portion includes a GLACIER (General Laboratory Active Cryogenic Experiment Refrigerator) freezer, good to -160°C.

Where do I sign up to help make acronyms for NASA?

I was wondering where the 'I' came from myself.

I'm too young to remember anything before the Challenger, but this is I think the most excited I've been about space development and exploration in my lifetime. It feels like we're just beginning to open a door to an enormous number of new opportunities and possibilities.

So, are they not going to just bring that satellite back down? Or does NASA need that cargo space for sending their stuff back down? Since everything else is going relatively well, this might become the most interesting story for this flight.

Also, I am not only in awe of the rocket engineering on display, but also at all the software that must work in order for this thing to do its job. It sounds like taking care of the engine failure was an automated process? I am sure at least a couple software engineers were among those sweating it when that whole process started.

Just tell me when the moon becomes the new caribbean. I could see easily in 10-20 years extremely rich families will go there first for the weekend and buy shirts that say "I bought this on the moon" and crap like that.

Then everything that's purchased and/or brought/experienced back with them will have to have space put in front of it.

Just tell me when the moon becomes the new caribbean. I could see easily in 10-20 years extremely rich families will go there first for the weekend and buy shirts that say "I bought this on the moon" and crap like that.

Then everything that's purchased and/or brought/experienced back with them will have to have space put in front of it.

"Your not just eating at a buffet, your eating at a SPACE BUFFET"

Unfortunately, 40 years ago people were saying the same thing. While we're making progress (there's a research group which is getting funding for a housing fabrication method which should theoretically work on the moon), it's still going to be some time before we can go for the weekend

Just tell me when the moon becomes the new caribbean. I could see easily in 10-20 years extremely rich families will go there first for the weekend and buy shirts that say "I bought this on the moon" and crap like that.

Then everything that's purchased and/or brought/experienced back with them will have to have space put in front of it.

It is indeed posing. Dragon is positioned (posed) intentionally to allow cameras on the ISS to inspect it for any problems that might affect reentry. This has been common practice with reentry vehicles (basically, just the shuttles and now Dragon) since the Columbia disaster.

So, are they not going to just bring that satellite back down? Or does NASA need that cargo space for sending their stuff back down?

There's no way to bring it back down.

The satellite isn't with the Dragon spacecraft; even though it took up the empty space in the trunk, it stayed mounted to the 2nd stage after separation (the intent was that the 2nd stage would re-light after separation and boost the satellite to a higher orbit).

Not that being stored in the trunk is any better. The trunk doesn't survive re-entry; it's jettisoned shortly after the deorbit burn.

Interesting - I would think "engine out" capability means you can make the same orbit with one engine out. Clearly that's not the case.

If you read the whole article, you'd see that the problem wasn't the ability to make the orbit, it was that burning the second stage with the satellite to put it where it was supposed to go would have risked a collision with the ISS.

If that isn't clear enough, the orbit is the destination. The trajectory is how you get there. Engine failure changes the trajectory, but it can still reach the desired orbit. The only reason the satellite wasn't inserted into its desired orbit was that the new trajectory was too close to the ISS to be safe.

Interesting - I would think "engine out" capability means you can make the same orbit with one engine out. Clearly that's not the case.

It did make the same orbit (obviously, since it reached the ISS). The issue is that it had to take a slightly different trajectory, and that put the second stage on a path that would have crossed a "no-fly" zone around the ISS if they had done the second burn for the satellite. I'm unclear on why they couldn't just do the burn once they were away from the ISS, but orbital trajectories are complicated, and I'm sure there's a good reason.

So, are they not going to just bring that satellite back down? Or does NASA need that cargo space for sending their stuff back down?

There's no way to bring it back down.

The satellite isn't with the Dragon spacecraft; even though it took up the empty space in the trunk, it stayed mounted to the 2nd stage after separation (the intent was that the 2nd stage would re-light after separation and boost the satellite to a higher orbit).

Not that being stored in the trunk is any better. The trunk doesn't survive re-entry; it's jettisoned shortly after the deorbit burn.

How long can the 2nd stage stay on orbit and still be re-lit? I wonder if they can track it, figure out its orbit and then (assuming it won't endanger the ISS), boost the satellite later on.

So, are they not going to just bring that satellite back down? Or does NASA need that cargo space for sending their stuff back down?

There's no way to bring it back down.

The satellite isn't with the Dragon spacecraft; even though it took up the empty space in the trunk, it stayed mounted to the 2nd stage after separation (the intent was that the 2nd stage would re-light after separation and boost the satellite to a higher orbit).

Not that being stored in the trunk is any better. The trunk doesn't survive re-entry; it's jettisoned shortly after the deorbit burn.

How long can the 2nd stage stay on orbit and still be re-lit? I wonder if they can track it, figure out its orbit and then (assuming it won't endanger the ISS), boost the satellite later on.

Not that long; my understanding is the batteries drain and the LOX boils off within a couple of hours (could be wrong about that, though). Basically, if you miss your window, you're screwed.

So, are they not going to just bring that satellite back down? Or does NASA need that cargo space for sending their stuff back down?

There's no way to bring it back down.

The satellite isn't with the Dragon spacecraft; even though it took up the empty space in the trunk, it stayed mounted to the 2nd stage after separation (the intent was that the 2nd stage would re-light after separation and boost the satellite to a higher orbit).

Not that being stored in the trunk is any better. The trunk doesn't survive re-entry; it's jettisoned shortly after the deorbit burn.

How long can the 2nd stage stay on orbit and still be re-lit? I wonder if they can track it, figure out its orbit and then (assuming it won't endanger the ISS), boost the satellite later on.

Not that long; my understanding is the batteries drain and the LOX boils off within a couple of hours (could be wrong about that, though). Basically, if you miss your window, you're screwed.

Beat me to it...

That was the first thing I checked. At least the fuel is unaffected..

The satellite is a tad disappointing, but Falcon 9's ability to deal with malfuctions like this is a major achievement.

the ISS has better capabilities for conducting joint experiments with commercial entities or other national institutions and organizing the resulting intellectual property.

I assume you mean public domain knowledge since the public paid for the platform and the "commercial" flight and the majority of scientists. If not, myself and every other taxpayer worldwide are entitled to a cut of the proceeds.

the ISS has better capabilities for conducting joint experiments with commercial entities or other national institutions and organizing the resulting intellectual property.

I assume you mean public domain knowledge since the public paid for the platform and the "commercial" flight and the majority of scientists. If not, myself and every other taxpayer worldwide are entitled to a cut of the proceeds.

You're not entitled to anything that comes out of Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, or Argonne. Why would you expect anything different with the ISS?

So, are they not going to just bring that satellite back down? Or does NASA need that cargo space for sending their stuff back down?

There's no way to bring it back down.

The satellite isn't with the Dragon spacecraft; even though it took up the empty space in the trunk, it stayed mounted to the 2nd stage after separation (the intent was that the 2nd stage would re-light after separation and boost the satellite to a higher orbit).

Not that being stored in the trunk is any better. The trunk doesn't survive re-entry; it's jettisoned shortly after the deorbit burn.

Got it, thanks. I must have missed that detail - or not fully understood it earlier. This whole sending a rocket to space thing appears to be a bit complicated

From a business perspective, how is this different than having the rocket explode? Don't they insure for launch failure or something? Surely they don't just "hope for the best" when it comes to putting a satellite into space?

So, are they not going to just bring that satellite back down? Or does NASA need that cargo space for sending their stuff back down?

There's no way to bring it back down.

The satellite isn't with the Dragon spacecraft; even though it took up the empty space in the trunk, it stayed mounted to the 2nd stage after separation (the intent was that the 2nd stage would re-light after separation and boost the satellite to a higher orbit).

Not that being stored in the trunk is any better. The trunk doesn't survive re-entry; it's jettisoned shortly after the deorbit burn.

Got it, thanks. I must have missed that detail - or not fully understood it earlier. This whole sending a rocket to space thing appears to be a bit complicated

From a business perspective, how is this different than having the rocket explode? Don't they insure for launch failure or something? Surely they don't just "hope for the best" when it comes to putting a satellite into space?

Yes, there's insurance involved (can't say much beyond that, though). And IINM SpaceX charges less for secondary payloads; the flip side is that the customer accepts more risk of failure. I'm pretty sure this is all spelled out in very precise terms in the contract; you can bet Orbcomm's and SpaceX's lawyers have been calling each other a lot over the past couple of days.

Yes, in this instance, the whole thing might as well have gone kaboom from Orbcomm's perspective. This isn't that rare an occurrence, though, where a satellite winds up in the wrong orbit because something went wrong with the booster.

Yes, in this instance, the whole thing might as well have gone kaboom from Orbcomm's perspective. This isn't that rare an occurrence, though, where a satellite winds up in the wrong orbit because something went wrong with the booster.

That's not really true, though. This launch was of a test satellite (probably why they would accept secondary mission status), and while the resulting orbit means they won't be able to use the satellite as part of their final constellation, they will be able to get useful data out of it, largely satisfying the needs of a test vehicle. It's certainly not ideal, but a lot better than a kaboom.

Everything else you said is true though. Also I read that Orbcomm still planned on launching 17 more satellites on Falcon 9s. In those missions they will be the primary payload so from that point of view this result probably increases their confidence.

From a business perspective, how is this different than having the rocket explode? Don't they insure for launch failure or something? Surely they don't just "hope for the best" when it comes to putting a satellite into space?

Depends on if they can use it where it is. Satellites fail to make their intended orbit (or orbit at all) pretty regularly. That's one of the reasons why acting like the engine failing is the end of the world is so funny, non-man-rated rockets aren't sure-thing bets even at the best of times.

Well, NUTS. (Not Unexpected, This is Space.) The ISS mission is a success, but Wikipedia has it rightly down as "partial failure" or something such on account of Orbcomm. Since it was a communication prototype it isn't certain that a wrong orbit, if that is the outcome, is sufficient to test the system.

Interesting - I would think "engine out" capability means you can make the same orbit with one engine out. Clearly that's not the case.

If you read the whole article, you'd see that the problem wasn't the ability to make the orbit, it was that burning the second stage with the satellite to put it where it was supposed to go would have risked a collision with the ISS.

If that isn't clear enough, the orbit is the destination. The trajectory is how you get there. Engine failure changes the trajectory, but it can still reach the desired orbit. The only reason the satellite wasn't inserted into its desired orbit was that the new trajectory was too close to the ISS to be safe.

To add to that, the initial description is a positive painting of a dynamic situation. When Falcon 9 launches, it needs all engines to get off the pad. I believe the Apollo IV was powerful enough to make it with one engine out already there, but I'm not certain.

Rather quickly (I would think) it has shed enough fuel mass to make one engine out survivability. And at the end of the burn it can make at least two engines out* - shutting two of them down is how they regulate that stage of the launch. (Since the current engine version can't regulate power much. The upcoming Falcon v1.1 Merlin engine version seems to have more latitude there.)

---------------* After awhile the lowered gravity and atmosphere density will help too. Especially the latter, the ISS still make its free fall in ~ 70 % of surface gravity IIRC.

A poor showing for the rocket, but a good showing for the flight control software.

I completely disagree. The launch system did its job despite a malfunction, demonstrating how robust it is.

Also: "unexpected disassembly" is my next band name.

Jetliners in the past had a lot more engines in case of failure; overtime, as the engines got better you don't need as many extras. In this case the system needed the spare. One can hope that this was a very unlikely to be duplicated event, but it is ominous for a company that hopes to put humans in space.

Put another way, would you really want to use this rocket over an Atlas 5, if it keeps malfunctioning?

Put another way, would you really want to use this rocket over an Atlas 5, if it keeps malfunctioning?

IIRC, Atlas 5 is not a reusable system, and they aren't very economical as well in comparison to other, more modern designs. Falcon 9 did the job with plenty of payload room left over. It was less-than-perfect, but I do enough with statistics to know that one event does not constitude a trend, and I've seen enough commercial launches to know that rocket science, despite the aphorism, isn't all that predictable.

As an additional follow up to this the Orbcomm satellite has been declared a complete loss. It is worth noting though that Orbcomm still has faith in using Space X as a launch partner.

And they got some data out of it before it re-entered the atmosphere. What I had read yesterday had suggested they might get several months worth of testing out of it, but I guess that's not the case. Oh well.